In Reply to: Re: Common Mode ( long ) from Dennis posted by mikeyb on December 4, 2006 at 09:36:12:
....'TWO sides of a musical signal'??...Nah, I can get that one. The positive and negative alternations of the AC signal voltage. That seems to bolt up very nicely with Dennis'ideas that operating a power supply close to the VAC of power transformer's secondary, with very little modification of inductance or capacitance, is superior to enable equal treatment of positive going or negative going alternations of the signal AC. If you have a brick wall of inductance or a pumped up filter cap, either the positive or the negative alternation of the signal will be inhibited. He may be right about that. The real problem is the ripple.
If you don't obtain critical inductance, you're going to have ripple. That's simply a fact, and the tests that John Swenson made last summer and the simulations that Tre posted demonstrated that. Now with proper layout, a constructor can obtain very little hum. However, with the standard being minimisation of hum, the logical error is that if one is able to, objectively, reduce the hum of a low DCR power supply by layout or any other means, isn't one 'bucking' the AC ripple voltage that must be there from the start. In which case, aren't we painted into the corner of either having an amp with alot of hum, or an amp which is quiet and therefore is losing musical information. It's a pickle. Anyway, as usual with Dennis' posts, he seems like a nice enough guy and has interesting ideas, but we still have that power supply problem and he doesn't seem to want to help. I guess just keep working it out. John Swenson has a regulator solution that might be promising. I hope he will publish it.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Common Mode ( long ) from Dennis - corerosin 11:16:12 12/04/06 (3)
- Thanks - mikeyb 12:20:00 12/04/06 (1)
- Re: Thanks - corerosin 13:28:14 12/04/06 (0)
- No (nt) - Henry Pasternack 11:32:43 12/04/06 (0)